AuthorTopic: Everybody Loves Science! (Read 40912 times)

I've realised that my everyday (read: compulsive) internet consumption didn't actually involve a whole lot of science, which is unfortunate considering I'm in the process of a career in it. So I've been looking for more sources to interesting topics in psychology, physics, chemistry, math and the like. So why don't we share?

I just got the image of a midwife and a woman giving birth swinging towards each other on a trapeze - when they meet, the midwife pulls the baby out. The knife juggler is standing on the floor and cuts the umbilical cord with a a knifethrow.

I just got the image of a midwife and a woman giving birth swinging towards each other on a trapeze - when they meet, the midwife pulls the baby out. The knife juggler is standing on the floor and cuts the umbilical cord with a a knifethrow.

The paradox of the proof: about a mathematical proof that no mathematician is able to understand, save for the person who wrote it.

Quote

On MathOverflow, an online math forum, mathematicians around the world began to debate and discuss Mochizuki’s claim. The question which quickly bubbled to the top of the forum, encouraged by the community’s “upvotes,” was simple: “Can someone briefly explain the philosophy behind his work and comment on why it might be expected to shed light on questions like the ABC conjecture?” asked Andy Putman, assistant professor at Rice University. Or, in plainer words: I don’t get it. Does anyone?

The problem, as many mathematicians were discovering when they flocked to Mochizuki’s website, was that the proof was impossible to read. The first paper, entitled “Inter-universal Teichmuller Theory I: Construction of Hodge Theaters,” starts out by stating that the goal is “to establish an arithmetic version of Teichmuller theory for number fields equipped with an elliptic curve…by applying the theory of semi-graphs of anabelioids, Frobenioids, the etale theta function, and log-shells.”

This is not just gibberish to the average layman. It was gibberish to the math community as well.

Logged

Quote from: snalin

I just got the image of a midwife and a woman giving birth swinging towards each other on a trapeze - when they meet, the midwife pulls the baby out. The knife juggler is standing on the floor and cuts the umbilical cord with a a knifethrow.

The paradox of the proof: about a mathematical proof that no mathematician is able to understand, save for the person who wrote it.

Quote

On MathOverflow, an online math forum, mathematicians around the world began to debate and discuss Mochizuki’s claim. The question which quickly bubbled to the top of the forum, encouraged by the community’s “upvotes,” was simple: “Can someone briefly explain the philosophy behind his work and comment on why it might be expected to shed light on questions like the ABC conjecture?” asked Andy Putman, assistant professor at Rice University. Or, in plainer words: I don’t get it. Does anyone?

The problem, as many mathematicians were discovering when they flocked to Mochizuki’s website, was that the proof was impossible to read. The first paper, entitled “Inter-universal Teichmuller Theory I: Construction of Hodge Theaters,” starts out by stating that the goal is “to establish an arithmetic version of Teichmuller theory for number fields equipped with an elliptic curve…by applying the theory of semi-graphs of anabelioids, Frobenioids, the etale theta function, and log-shells.”

This is not just gibberish to the average layman. It was gibberish to the math community as well.

It will be decoded. This happened with Bieberbach's conjecture back in 1984 - the unassuming Louis deBranges, a professor at Purdue (where I was just starting my master's in math) was lauded for solving it... 6 years after he had done so. No one could read the damned thing, until a team of soviet mathematicians and grad students set out to prove that he had failed to prove the conjecture, as he had claimed.

They wound up confirming (and cleaning up) his proof. After which he was lauded throughout the world for solving an intractable problem.

Oh, and there are only four terms in that "indecipherable" title I didn't recognize; which is better than my first mathematical mentor, who used to tell us, "After 40 years in mathematics, I can walk into the library, pull out a mathematical journal, flip to the table of contents, and have absolutely no idea what 95% of it is about!"

The point is that math is so freaking specialized that, unless you're one of the two or three people in the world working directly on a particular problem, you're going to have a rough time understanding any of it!

Note: Just because I recognize a bunch of terms in the title doesn't mean I'd have a snowball's chance in hell of understanding any of it...

I just got the image of a midwife and a woman giving birth swinging towards each other on a trapeze - when they meet, the midwife pulls the baby out. The knife juggler is standing on the floor and cuts the umbilical cord with a a knifethrow.

MinutePhysics is so cool. I knew that the speed of light is the same regardless of at which speed you yourself are moving, but I didn't know how. I also knew that time passes at different rates depending on how fast you're moving relative to other objects, but I didn't know why. Only when I watched this video did I actually connect the two! If you have two observers at different speeds, and they both measure light as moving at the same speed, then what must be different between them is the rate at which time passes.

Logged

Quote from: snalin

I just got the image of a midwife and a woman giving birth swinging towards each other on a trapeze - when they meet, the midwife pulls the baby out. The knife juggler is standing on the floor and cuts the umbilical cord with a a knifethrow.

It's not exclusive to science per se but Memrise.com seems to be useful for learning stuff. Anyone ever heard of it?

Logged

Quote from: snalin

I just got the image of a midwife and a woman giving birth swinging towards each other on a trapeze - when they meet, the midwife pulls the baby out. The knife juggler is standing on the floor and cuts the umbilical cord with a a knifethrow.

I think we've hit the "science is indistinguishable from sci-fi" equivalence.

Well, we are talking about String Theory after all...

The two are indistringuishable?

I've probably told this story here before, but I think it's mostly the 3+ year forum vets who will remember it. Here goes.

My stepmom's father, one James Ricker Wilson, was a nuclear physicist working at LLNL during the Manhattan Project. He discovered the malleability of plutonium. When my sister (then a liberal arts major at Oglethorpe University in Atlanta) came home to visit, she told him the story of how she had witnessed several young male physics majors using explanations of String Theory in order to pick up on girls. Upon hearing this, Grandpa Jim harrumphed and said "Well, at least it's good for something."

My father's father, an engineer for Kellogg (later to merge with Brown & Root to become what's now known as KBR) also worked on that project. Sworn to secrecy, he never told a soul what he did for it. But, since he was what's now known as a materials engineer (stress fractures, bearing loads and all that) we think he probably worked on the case designs. Who knows... I wonder if any of that's ever been declassified enough to find out what he did? Maybe I should look...

There was a plaque we found in the basement signed by Harry Truman thanking him for his efforts on the project. My father hung it up after they moved into the house... 60 years later.

The point is that math is so freaking specialized that, unless you're one of the two or three people in the world working directly on a particular problem, you're going to have a rough time understanding any of it!

A related Spiked Math comic. Actually I somewhat disagree with the two rightmost bars. The mathematicians know better, and the rightmost bar might fit better how undergrads feel (IIRC?) after a course in complex analysis and Galois theory. And after a lifetime of work, a mathematician surely absorbed a few PhDs worth. True, they have forgotten half of the stuff from graduate school...

Of what I've seen in experimental physics, undergrads know virtually nothing but think they know everything, graduate students know the most about how the experiment works but are convinced they know nothing, and the professor knows everything except the details of how to get the experiment to actually work, and thinks he knows absolutely everything.

Incidentally, that big skyscraper in the foreground? There is now a new one, 28% taller, under construction next door, that will beat Guangzhou's Canton Tower for tallest structure in China. At least until the Ping An Tower in Shenzen is completed... Come on Shanghai, get building! You know you owe it to yourself to have the tallest skyscrapers!

« Last Edit: 14 Jun 2013, 18:53 by Akima »

Logged

"I would rather have questions that can't be answered, than answers that can't be questioned." Richard Feynman

The Nanopatch, as it's been named, is used as a replacement for the traditional method of administering vaccines—injection with needle and syringe.

Currently a vaccine is injected into muscle tissue where it encounters immune cells, triggering a response. In contrast, the Nanopatch, which has thousands of projections on the skin side, injects the vaccine just under the skin, where Kendall notes, there are more immune cells. This means, he added, that less vaccine is needed to accomplish the same goal which in turn means each dose would cost far less.

One of the major problems with current injectable vaccines is that they are water based, which means they have be kept chilled to prevent spoilage. This can be a major problem for vaccination programs in areas where there is limited refrigeration facilities. Kendall cited recent reports that suggest up to half of the vaccines administered in Africa don't work properly due to refrigeration issues. With the Nanopatch, the vaccine is dry, thus it doesn't have to be kept chilled. Each patch is silicone based and has 20,000 micro-sized projections on its underside that deliver the vaccine—it's smaller than a typical postage stamp. Because the projections are so small, they cannot be felt piercing the skin, making the application of the vaccine completely painless. Thus far, testing of the Nanopatch by the development team has involved administering the flu vaccine to volunteers.

Kendall added that another advantage of the nanopatch is that it requires the use of much less adjuvants—chemicals added to vaccines to provoke a better immune response. Some of these adjuvants have been suspected of causing health problems, and in some cases autism, though no proof has ever been found. Looking ahead, Kendall said he believes the Nanopatch will soon become available for use against malaria infections as well.

I built the walls that make my life a prison, I built them all and cannot be forgiven... ...Sold my soul to carry your vendetta, So let me go before you can regret it, You've made your choice and now it's come to this, But that's price you pay when you're a monster with no name.

I just got the image of a midwife and a woman giving birth swinging towards each other on a trapeze - when they meet, the midwife pulls the baby out. The knife juggler is standing on the floor and cuts the umbilical cord with a a knifethrow.

I'm not sure if they're different products, but Ars Technica did a bunch of tests with EverDry and according to them, the biggest limitation of it is that the stuff is quite toxic. It's not recommended to put on your clothes, because it might get on your skin, neither should you coat your bathroom with it because the fumes are going to accumulate indoors. I wonder if the other one is any different.

Logged

Quote from: snalin

I just got the image of a midwife and a woman giving birth swinging towards each other on a trapeze - when they meet, the midwife pulls the baby out. The knife juggler is standing on the floor and cuts the umbilical cord with a a knifethrow.

I just got the image of a midwife and a woman giving birth swinging towards each other on a trapeze - when they meet, the midwife pulls the baby out. The knife juggler is standing on the floor and cuts the umbilical cord with a a knifethrow.

Via Ars Technica, this study examined how women's self-identities affect their performance on math tests. They had one group of men and women making the test under a fake name, and another making the test under their real name. The women who used a fake name performed better on the math test than those who used their real name, but not the men. The authors say: "These findings suggest that women's impaired math performance is often due to the threat of confirming a negative stereotype as being true of the self."

If I understand that correctly, I think it would generalise to both men and women if they had lower expectations of their performance compared to others. Maybe you could find the same effect with racial stereotyping, both negative and positive.

Also, for your recommended daily intake of mindblowing astrophyical phenomena, I point you to starquakes. STARQUAKES.

« Last Edit: 20 Jul 2013, 16:19 by LTK »

Logged

Quote from: snalin

I just got the image of a midwife and a woman giving birth swinging towards each other on a trapeze - when they meet, the midwife pulls the baby out. The knife juggler is standing on the floor and cuts the umbilical cord with a a knifethrow.

If I understand that correctly, I think it would generalise to both men and women if they had lower expectations of their performance compared to others. Maybe you could find the same effect with racial stereotyping, both negative and positive.

Is it low expectations of their performance by the test takers that this study illuminates? I gathered that the women were supposed to be put off because their high performance in Maths would somehow reflect badly on them. If true, this reflects very poorly on their social environment.

Logged

"I would rather have questions that can't be answered, than answers that can't be questioned." Richard Feynman

When mathematical ignorance is the social norm, then yes, the social environment is to blame.

Shit. It hadn't even occured to me that people might consider having a certain skill a bad thing. That's kind of depressing.

So, when the authors are saying that the women are afraid of confirming a negative stereotype, it's not the stereotype of a woman, but the stereotype of a nerd. Goddamn it, I thought we had at least some progress in moving past that stigma by now.

Logged

Quote from: snalin

I just got the image of a midwife and a woman giving birth swinging towards each other on a trapeze - when they meet, the midwife pulls the baby out. The knife juggler is standing on the floor and cuts the umbilical cord with a a knifethrow.

When mathematical ignorance is the social norm, then yes, the social environment is to blame.

Shit. It hadn't even occured to me that people might consider having a certain skill a bad thing. That's kind of depressing.

So, when the authors are saying that the women are afraid of confirming a negative stereotype, it's not the stereotype of a woman, but the stereotype of a nerd. Goddamn it, I thought we had at least some progress in moving past that stigma by now.

It's FAR more than just being seen as a nerd. The fear is that being good in math will make them literally unattractive to boys and doomed to a life of spinsterhood, and has been reinforced by a very large array of societal pressures that includes boys, other girls, media, teachers and even parents. It's one of the most insidious and intractable memes to ever hit modern society, and even when some people agree with the idea that girls are just as good or better at math as boys, they'll still council not showing off as better. Even on college campuses, hearing a woman say "Oh, I'm just not good at math" is no less common than hearing "oh, I had my period last week".

I find women who are very good at math extremely attractive. I absolutely suck at math and like it when a partner can compensate for my utter failure in certain fields.

Logged

I built the walls that make my life a prison, I built them all and cannot be forgiven... ...Sold my soul to carry your vendetta, So let me go before you can regret it, You've made your choice and now it's come to this, But that's price you pay when you're a monster with no name.

It's FAR more than just being seen as a nerd. The fear is that being good in math will make them literally unattractive to boys and doomed to a life of spinsterhood, and has been reinforced by a very large array of societal pressures that includes boys, other girls, media, teachers and even parents. It's one of the most insidious and intractable memes to ever hit modern society, and even when some people agree with the idea that girls are just as good or better at math as boys, they'll still council not showing off as better. Even on college campuses, hearing a woman say "Oh, I'm just not good at math" is no less common than hearing "oh, I had my period last week".

But that doesn't even make any sense! What's so special about math? Is it hard? Is there a stigma against girls being smart, or academically competent?

I just got the image of a midwife and a woman giving birth swinging towards each other on a trapeze - when they meet, the midwife pulls the baby out. The knife juggler is standing on the floor and cuts the umbilical cord with a a knifethrow.

Actually, I was referring to the general societal stigma against mathematical understanding. If a person's illiterate, they try and hide the fact. But when someone's innumerate? They brag about it. "I never did understand any of that math stuff" is a common attitude, and parents saying "Oh, don't worry about it, I was bad at math too" just makes it socially hereditary in the worst possible way.

And, of course, it's supposed to be worse for women, the poor dears - so difficult to wrap your head around such ideas when you're a barefoot, pregnant slave to your hormones...

With our current possibilities going near speed of light is just as impossible as going faster than it, so why not assume the more practical way, seeing as both are equally impossible right now.

The way I see it, where there is actual matter, it 'displaces', for lack of a better word, the empty space that was previously there. This means that, while the empty space expands, it may push objects further apart, but it doesn't stretch them out, so distances on earth would stay the same. Of course I am no physicist, but this is how I think it works. I imagine it like balls floating in a pool of water. If you pour the water in a bigger pool it consume a wider area, but the balls stay the same size.

I considered that possibility but I've never read anything by an actual physicist that supports that view. Mass does distort the spacetime around it, which is the cause of gravitational force. I don't think it would be accurate to say that where there is mass, there can be no space - partly because atoms are at least 90% empty space - but it's entirely possible that the distortion of spacetime caused by mass is of the same type as the stretching out of spacetime caused by the expansion of the universe. Maybe they even counteract.

Also, I thought that the expansion of the universe would eventually result in all matter being pulled apart precisely because the expansion increases the size of objects along with the size of space, but when I went to confirm that on Wikipedia the article on Heat Death I couldn't find any mention of that being a factor, so I could be wrong.

Logged

Quote from: snalin

I just got the image of a midwife and a woman giving birth swinging towards each other on a trapeze - when they meet, the midwife pulls the baby out. The knife juggler is standing on the floor and cuts the umbilical cord with a a knifethrow.

As far as I understand it, the universe is getting bigger, yes, but the gravity of galaxies should keep them together. Like...

Take a cup that is narrow at the bottom, but wide at the top. Put some beads (that float) in, and fill it with water. The beads are going to start close to each other, but after a while get farther apart. I think the universe is a bit like that*, with gravity keeping the galaxies (and atoms) together, even though they move further apart. Not quite sure if this is appropriate though.

*I guess the cup would be infinitely thin in the bottom, be infinitely high, be infinitely wide at the top. And have hella dimensions. Metaphor breakdown!

"Space," it says, "is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space, listen..."